I go through these phases where I feel clumsy. Not just physically clumsy, but also like I'm barely able to get the right words out. I've talked about feeling a step out of sync with things before, but this is a little bit different. This feels as though at any moment I'll crash into something. When I'm driving I feel like at any moment I'll be caught looking the wrong way and turn to see a train headed right for me, even if I'm not near any train tracks. Overall it feels like I should just keep my head down and wait for whatever this is to pass. The only problem is that you can't just hide away and hope it goes away because you have to keep on living your life, even if people around you seem to be looking at you as though something is hanging from your nose.
The thing is that maybe when this clumsiness cloud has centered on you, other people can sense it. It could be like walking into a familiar room and knowing something is out of place. Something about you is out of place and people notice it, even if only subconsciously. Then again maybe part of the problem is that everything you see is off kilter so people are looking at you normally and instead you see them as staring back at you like some sort of alien doofus that's going to break something. Maybe it's a bit of both. I've considered the somewhat cosmic scenario where these situations are just a manifestation of us being in the wrong place at the wrong time in our own lives. We feel clumsy or out of sorts because we're not where we should be and until we get back into place we feel as though we're smashing through life. While that could be true, I sometimes wonder if maybe it's also something physical and mental.
We've all had times where we feel like we're on fire (in the good way). Everything is going our way. Maybe we find ourselves a little more quick witted than usual. Maybe we feel especially lucky for a certain period of time. What if during those moments, no matter how long they last, everything inside of us is operating exactly how it should be. It might not be perfection, but it's about as close as you can get while still being a mortal. Nothing lasts forever and we eventually go back to "normal" where there are good times and bad times, hopefully either equaling out or balancing more towards the good. If those times of near perfection where we just feel like we're spot on are possible because of something internal then it would stand to reason that sometimes things aren't working perfectly. Now the opposite of perfection is total disaster and while I don't think that's always what's at work, I do think maybe it's some minor monkey wrench within us that's throwing everything off. This whatever-it-is is enough to make it so that words don't come out right or we constantly think we're going to bump into something.
So I suppose the question really isn't just what do we do to fix this when it happens, but also how do we prevent it from happening again? One could argue that the internal is directly related to the external, meaning that our environment is as much a contributor to what happens inside of us and what is inside of us also shapes what surrounds us. If one aspect isn't right then does that mean it throws off the whole picture? Plus there is so much of our lives and ourselves that we simply can't control so it can sometimes feel like we're at the mercy of randomness. That of course bring up the whole notion of if there is truly random events in the world or just parts of some greater series of events that we can't always see. Maybe if you could see your lifeline on a map, showing exactly where you were headed and where you were supposed to be going, you could make out the time when you are wobbling out of control and deviating from what should be your path. Those minor deviations could be those times when you feel like a bull in a china shop, crashing into life around.
Monday, March 4, 2013
Friday, January 11, 2013
On Money
They say money changes you and I started to wonder why that is. What is it about money that inherently changes the way people behave. It can drive someone to lie, steal, cheat, and even kill to get it. What is it about money that causes that level of reaction, or overreaction? Why do we want money so badly? Is it because of the things we believe it can get for us? Maybe that's all it really comes down to. Money is just a concept we use. It's our way to keeping track of just how much of what you want you can have. I guess in that regard then money can equal freedom, at least in our society's terms of what freedom is. Currently our society is a capitalistic one, where one's success is rewarded with money. We tend to associate money with power because money gets you what you want. Just look at the Hollywood movie producer, who is a multi-millionaire, that controls the lives of not on the movies they produce, but also the lives of the people involved in them. They wield a ridiculous amount of power, and not just within their own little world. That is thanks to not only their own wealth, but also their ability to make money for others. Money can influence even political power. Look at our own elections. In order to be even nominated you have to generate a huge amount of money. This is just to be seen. Then if you're elected, you have to start bringing in even more money for your eventual reelection. In addition to normal skills like being able to lead, understand the law, and navigate the world of professional politics, one has to be a fundraiser as well. Does that mean money is the root of all evil or just a necessary one?
Not all that long ago it used to be that we would barter for our goods and services. You want that sack of flour then you'll need to work on my roof for a few hours. Time and energy were exchanged for equal (hopefully) time and energy. Somewhere along the way that changed. Instead of a direct exchange of services, we now tend to hand over whatever currency is accepted in exchange for something. So now if you want that bag of flour you're not going to be talking to the guy who milled it. Instead you're talking to the supermarket chain that worked out a deal with said guy or group of guys to pay them a specific amount of money for their product in exchange for the ability to take that bag of flour out beyond the reach of what the guy could have hoped to done on his own. I'm not saying this setup is bad because I don't know any guys who mill flour, which means if I want it then my options are kind of limited. No, the problem really comes from other situations where we're exchanging our time and energy for something other than equal time and energy. I have agreed to work 40 hours in a week so that you'll pay me an agreed upon of money that I can then turn around and spend on whatever I want, which is usually bills. The basic assumption is that the money you're giving me is going to have value equal to the time I invested in getting it. When you think about it though, does the money ever really match up in value to the time it took to get it? And it makes me wonder as well are we devaluing ourselves in the process? It can be rare to see your time and energy get turned into something tangible rather than some numbers put into your bank account where the other numbers live.
How is it that a majority of the world's wealth is kept by a very small minority of people? It's seemingly always been that way too be it monarchies, business owners, or extraordinary individuals who did something special. I can't fault someone for wanting to maintain their level of wealth. Very rarely do people want to go backwards in what they have. So we ask ourselves how does that billionaire justify making another fifty million dollars when they already have more than enough. Couldn't some resident in a third world nation ask that of a middle class family who is living on the combined salaries that is less than eighty thousand dollars a year, which could be exponentially greater than anything they could hope to make in their own lifetime? The family that's living on eighty thousand dollars may be very comfortable. They'll have bills and complications like everyone else, including the billionaire. Sure the billionaire is able to fly to Monaco to race a car made of diamonds against a solid gold robot he had commissioned, but some way or another he has to pay for all that, even if his reserves are much greater than the average person. The middle class family is able to keep their fridge stocked with food, their kids in new clothes, and has access to just about any medicine they would need for non-emergencies.
I'm not saying that billionaires should give their money away. I'm not mad or jealous of them for having that money. I'm just curious what they did to get it and in such high amounts. As with many things I'm sure a lot of circumstances had to come into play. They say it's easy to make money if you already have plenty to start with, which is why a lot of people will assume that if someone comes from a wealthy family then it is assumed they'll always be rich as long as nothing catastrophic happens. Is that really successful though? If you start out with a million dollars to your name and you turn that into a billion aren't you just doing what most other people are doing? Someone who starts with a thousand dollars is likely to turn that into something greater than a thousand dollars. So what are these people with money doing with their wealth? Sure some of them may be sitting on it because like Scrooge McDuck believes, the ownership of money is its own reward. Others though are spending that money. When money is spent is has to be going somewhere. Does it all just sort of circulate back to the original owner in those cases? I guess my question is how is it there are trillions of dollars moving around through the economy and yet for the most part everyone's portion of it stays roughly the same throughout their life?
Is the accumulation of wealth all just arbitrary? If tomorrow your bank account said zero then the world around you would immediately decide you have zero worth, at least until you sort out the problem, assuming you could sort out the problem. That doesn't address the larger issue though, which is that our very money, regardless of how much you have in the bank, under the mattress, or invested in offshore accounts has a value that we all have to agree upon. Currently our money isn't backed by gold like it used to be. It's backed by something else now and it's an elaborate game to keep convincing everyone we know that it's still worth the value printed on it. I don't think that tomorrow our money is suddenly going to become worthless. I doubt even that our personal value of money is going to change all that much. I do wonder though about recent situations where it's becoming painfully clear that our money isn't exactly safe and those who are supposed to be in charge of it seem to be more interested in maintaining their own levels than performing the services they were expected to do for their customers. I find it hard to believe that other countries have their economies crumble and even collapse while our own country soldiers on. Sure we have recessions and depressions. One has to wonder though does each time that happen does it make our dollar just a little bit weaker? Will it eventually get to the point where we all ask ourselves why we're using this piece of paper, which is a note saying we have some numbers in a bank, is so important to how we live? If and when that happens will we turn our attention back to something more tangible in value?
Not all that long ago it used to be that we would barter for our goods and services. You want that sack of flour then you'll need to work on my roof for a few hours. Time and energy were exchanged for equal (hopefully) time and energy. Somewhere along the way that changed. Instead of a direct exchange of services, we now tend to hand over whatever currency is accepted in exchange for something. So now if you want that bag of flour you're not going to be talking to the guy who milled it. Instead you're talking to the supermarket chain that worked out a deal with said guy or group of guys to pay them a specific amount of money for their product in exchange for the ability to take that bag of flour out beyond the reach of what the guy could have hoped to done on his own. I'm not saying this setup is bad because I don't know any guys who mill flour, which means if I want it then my options are kind of limited. No, the problem really comes from other situations where we're exchanging our time and energy for something other than equal time and energy. I have agreed to work 40 hours in a week so that you'll pay me an agreed upon of money that I can then turn around and spend on whatever I want, which is usually bills. The basic assumption is that the money you're giving me is going to have value equal to the time I invested in getting it. When you think about it though, does the money ever really match up in value to the time it took to get it? And it makes me wonder as well are we devaluing ourselves in the process? It can be rare to see your time and energy get turned into something tangible rather than some numbers put into your bank account where the other numbers live.
How is it that a majority of the world's wealth is kept by a very small minority of people? It's seemingly always been that way too be it monarchies, business owners, or extraordinary individuals who did something special. I can't fault someone for wanting to maintain their level of wealth. Very rarely do people want to go backwards in what they have. So we ask ourselves how does that billionaire justify making another fifty million dollars when they already have more than enough. Couldn't some resident in a third world nation ask that of a middle class family who is living on the combined salaries that is less than eighty thousand dollars a year, which could be exponentially greater than anything they could hope to make in their own lifetime? The family that's living on eighty thousand dollars may be very comfortable. They'll have bills and complications like everyone else, including the billionaire. Sure the billionaire is able to fly to Monaco to race a car made of diamonds against a solid gold robot he had commissioned, but some way or another he has to pay for all that, even if his reserves are much greater than the average person. The middle class family is able to keep their fridge stocked with food, their kids in new clothes, and has access to just about any medicine they would need for non-emergencies.
I'm not saying that billionaires should give their money away. I'm not mad or jealous of them for having that money. I'm just curious what they did to get it and in such high amounts. As with many things I'm sure a lot of circumstances had to come into play. They say it's easy to make money if you already have plenty to start with, which is why a lot of people will assume that if someone comes from a wealthy family then it is assumed they'll always be rich as long as nothing catastrophic happens. Is that really successful though? If you start out with a million dollars to your name and you turn that into a billion aren't you just doing what most other people are doing? Someone who starts with a thousand dollars is likely to turn that into something greater than a thousand dollars. So what are these people with money doing with their wealth? Sure some of them may be sitting on it because like Scrooge McDuck believes, the ownership of money is its own reward. Others though are spending that money. When money is spent is has to be going somewhere. Does it all just sort of circulate back to the original owner in those cases? I guess my question is how is it there are trillions of dollars moving around through the economy and yet for the most part everyone's portion of it stays roughly the same throughout their life?
Is the accumulation of wealth all just arbitrary? If tomorrow your bank account said zero then the world around you would immediately decide you have zero worth, at least until you sort out the problem, assuming you could sort out the problem. That doesn't address the larger issue though, which is that our very money, regardless of how much you have in the bank, under the mattress, or invested in offshore accounts has a value that we all have to agree upon. Currently our money isn't backed by gold like it used to be. It's backed by something else now and it's an elaborate game to keep convincing everyone we know that it's still worth the value printed on it. I don't think that tomorrow our money is suddenly going to become worthless. I doubt even that our personal value of money is going to change all that much. I do wonder though about recent situations where it's becoming painfully clear that our money isn't exactly safe and those who are supposed to be in charge of it seem to be more interested in maintaining their own levels than performing the services they were expected to do for their customers. I find it hard to believe that other countries have their economies crumble and even collapse while our own country soldiers on. Sure we have recessions and depressions. One has to wonder though does each time that happen does it make our dollar just a little bit weaker? Will it eventually get to the point where we all ask ourselves why we're using this piece of paper, which is a note saying we have some numbers in a bank, is so important to how we live? If and when that happens will we turn our attention back to something more tangible in value?
Monday, October 29, 2012
On Morality
I've always had what could be considered morally gray disposition. Like most people I tend to think of myself as a generally good person, but I know for a fact that I won't be getting nominated for any humanitarian awards in the near future. And I'm ok with that. My philosophy has always been to try and be good and do good where you can, but occasionally I listen to the voice in my head that says "Take what you can, when you can". Now that may sound a bit greedy. I tend to think of it as opportunistic. The universe sometimes provides you with an opportunity and it's up to you to take it or leave it. It's at moments like this that there may be a bit of moral dilemma where your conscience may start yelling in your ear that you should or shouldn't do something. Now of course it depends on the situation, but I often treat these situations like I do with food. It's generally best to accept food when it's offered because you never know when it may be offered again. I admit that type of thinking may sound like someone who lived on the streets of a Dickens story. I'm not out to hurt anyone and I try to be somewhat socially conscious of how my actions may impact others. These can be little things like not littering or putting my shopping cart back in the cart corral. They can also be bigger things like doing what I can to help those who need it. Still I would say at least on a weekly basis I do things that a part of me knows is wrong.
We all attempt to justify our actions. Leaving work early even though you came in late. You worked extra last week or will work more tomorrow. The salesman forgot to ring up an item. Given how much money they make it won't hurt them to miss this one thing. You burned that guy's shed to the ground because he had it coming for that thing with the guy that one time. Granted some of our justifications are more rational than others. In the end though it's just how we tell ourselves that our actions are ok. I would imagine that most socially functional people know the difference between right and wrong. It's just that we tell ourselves that because we had a good reason to do something that we are in the right for doing something wrong. We like to label those people who don't seem to care about right or wrong as sociopaths (actually I read an interview from a psychologist who said that term is incorrect and the proper term should be psychopaths) because it helps to separate us from those people who are socially "broken". The thing is that to an outsider a lot of our actions could be considered psychotic bordering on self-destructive. Now maybe you're not sitting in a bathroom cutting lines into your thigh or taking drugs that slowly burn away the bad thoughts, but let's face it, we all do things that we ourselves look back on and wonder why we thought that was the right thing to do at the time when it seems obvious that just the opposite action was probably the better choice.
I guess the question really comes down to what is the basis of our morals? Who or what is really the moral authority? I tend to believe that we allow society to somewhat dictate what is moral, even though it really comes down to the individual to decide. Very few of us get through life without letting those around us influence our behavior. Even those people who claim they don't care what other people think are often bound by the general rules of society. In the end though we are our own moral authority. We decide what we believe to be right. Now those beliefs are shaped and built by everything in our lives. While society may say it's wrong to commit murder, you may believe that in some circumstances murder may be necessary, if not justified. Does that make you wrong? I've often wondered what our morals will look like a thousand years from now. If we as a species are still around will we still even have a concept like morals or ethics? I suppose it depends on our situation at the time. Morals are a lot like civil liberties, in times of crisis they can be considered a luxury that can get you killed. Some people though feel that no matter the situation you shouldn't compromise your ideals. Doing so only compromises your self. It's hard to know if those people are right or wrong because while their moral code may ultimately cost them here, there may be a much greater picture to consider than just what happens in the here and now. Is the possibility of a giant cosmic tapestry enough to prevent people from doing whatever they think they can get away with or at least feel bad about it when they break their own moral guidelines?
We all attempt to justify our actions. Leaving work early even though you came in late. You worked extra last week or will work more tomorrow. The salesman forgot to ring up an item. Given how much money they make it won't hurt them to miss this one thing. You burned that guy's shed to the ground because he had it coming for that thing with the guy that one time. Granted some of our justifications are more rational than others. In the end though it's just how we tell ourselves that our actions are ok. I would imagine that most socially functional people know the difference between right and wrong. It's just that we tell ourselves that because we had a good reason to do something that we are in the right for doing something wrong. We like to label those people who don't seem to care about right or wrong as sociopaths (actually I read an interview from a psychologist who said that term is incorrect and the proper term should be psychopaths) because it helps to separate us from those people who are socially "broken". The thing is that to an outsider a lot of our actions could be considered psychotic bordering on self-destructive. Now maybe you're not sitting in a bathroom cutting lines into your thigh or taking drugs that slowly burn away the bad thoughts, but let's face it, we all do things that we ourselves look back on and wonder why we thought that was the right thing to do at the time when it seems obvious that just the opposite action was probably the better choice.
I guess the question really comes down to what is the basis of our morals? Who or what is really the moral authority? I tend to believe that we allow society to somewhat dictate what is moral, even though it really comes down to the individual to decide. Very few of us get through life without letting those around us influence our behavior. Even those people who claim they don't care what other people think are often bound by the general rules of society. In the end though we are our own moral authority. We decide what we believe to be right. Now those beliefs are shaped and built by everything in our lives. While society may say it's wrong to commit murder, you may believe that in some circumstances murder may be necessary, if not justified. Does that make you wrong? I've often wondered what our morals will look like a thousand years from now. If we as a species are still around will we still even have a concept like morals or ethics? I suppose it depends on our situation at the time. Morals are a lot like civil liberties, in times of crisis they can be considered a luxury that can get you killed. Some people though feel that no matter the situation you shouldn't compromise your ideals. Doing so only compromises your self. It's hard to know if those people are right or wrong because while their moral code may ultimately cost them here, there may be a much greater picture to consider than just what happens in the here and now. Is the possibility of a giant cosmic tapestry enough to prevent people from doing whatever they think they can get away with or at least feel bad about it when they break their own moral guidelines?
Thursday, August 30, 2012
On the War Within
Sometimes it's possible to have two conflicting thoughts in your head at the same time. It used to be a rarity that this would happen, but it seems to be happening more and more lately. For as long as I can remember I've always been hit with two different ideas of what would potentially make me happy. A part of me wants the simple life. Maybe a nice country house out in the middle of nowhere. To be surrounded by nature and mostly left in isolation. The idea of a more quaint kind of life has always been appealing to me. Now I know that a farmer's or rancher's life is pretty hard work, but at the end of the day you always knew what you accomplished. Maybe it's the dream of being somewhat self-sufficient that was the draw for me. In stories there would always be the main character who had escaped the craziness of the outside world and lived in isolation. A cabin in the woods where they hunt for their food and keep a garden. A faithful dog and horse and the ability to live off the land where all they needed. Some days that sounds like absolute heaven.
The problem is for all the trouble that comes with being around people, there is a lot of good from them too. By nature we're social creatures and crave interaction with others. Granted some of us have a shorter tolerance than others, but being around other human beings can bring out some of the best of us. When we're alone there is little to push us to be more than we are. Sure a person may strive to be better. It's just that when we're by ourselves the only measuring stick we have is what we come up with. Now a great many things can come from being alone. You can really learn about who you are if you ever give yourself a chance to just sit and be alone with yourself. That may sound strange, but try it sometime. Turn off as much external stimulation as possible and just be with yourself. At first your mind may feel as though it's starved for input, but eventually you'll settle down and that's when you'll start getting to know yourself a bit more. You may finally start facing certain things about yourself that you didn't know where there. This can be both good and frightening as sometimes it's easier to brush things under the carpet. There is a reason why solitary confinement is considered a punishment. After awhile we need other people in much the same way that we need food and water. There is something about having people around that we simply have to have. Like anything else, moderation is key.
So there is that part of me that wants to go off and live like Jeremiah Johnson, before the whole being attacked constantly by Indians, surviving off the land and just being left alone. Then there is another part of me that wants something completely different. This part wants to be surrounded by people of various relationships. Friends, family, wacky neighbors, and plenty of that-guy-you-know type people. This part of me also is fascinated with possibilities. Technical advancements. Scientific discoveries. Medical breakthroughs. Our place in the global community. The future of all mankind. This part of me is excited to hear about what new greatness exists just around the corner. I want to be a part of it, even if only on the sideline as an amateur enthusiast. Trivial things like movies, art, literature, and video games are all sources of potential greatness and joy. I see these things and it's like being a kid again, just stunned with happiness that they exist in my time. Not only do I see these things I want to share my experiences with others and have them do the same with me. This is where our craving for interaction with other people really comes into play. I could read something and think one thing and then someone else reads the same thing and thinks something slightly different. We talk about it and we both realize we never would have come to those thoughts without each other. It makes what we read that much more enjoyable because it takes on additional meanings. To me that's the best part of people.
Not very long ago it felt like I woke up one day and it felt like much of the world was annoyingly bad. The things I liked once were now stupid to me. My tolerance for this spreading stupidity was shrinking quickly. Watching TV I'd see more and more signs that we as a society are embracing mediocrity and celebrating the dumb while complaining about how it's not fair that those people over there have it better than us. I was starting to feel very much disenchanted with just about everything. How come I couldn't find joy in the little things like I used to? Things couldn't really be as bad as they seemed. There had to be some good out there in the world. How come I couldn't see it? This is where the two conflicting sides of me start going to work. If the world is full of stupid crap and there aren't any signs of it getting better, then maybe it would be good to extricate myself from the world. It's probably a pretty natural feeling by many people. They see the world seemingly running away into a chaotic mess that has lost all sense of meaning. Why let yourself become a part of this ever increasing problem? Maybe it's just best to escape while it's still an option.
The thing is that even if you don't see the good in the world it's still out there. You're just not looking hard enough. It can be difficult to break out of the assumption that everything is stupid. Sure there will always be stupidity and people who seem to have the sole purpose on this planet to get in your way or make you seriously question our future as a species. For every stupid person out there exists someone brilliant. Someone trying to do good and overcome the idea that the lowest common denominator is good enough. You just have to look for them with a little more effort. It's too easy to accept what's presented to us on a daily basis. That the world is in disarray. That we should be afraid of our neighbor. That we should accept the cheapest possible version of something and be thankful for it. Instead maybe it would be best to stop taking the version of someone else as the truth and go out and see for ourselves. Not everything is going to be wonderful, but not everything is going to be horrifying either. We've gotten to a point where it takes a lot to get our attention so in turn only extremes can catch our eye. Maybe by turning off the so-called filters that actually act as amplifiers we can start to get back to what's real. For me the hope is that by doing so I can hopefully figure out if the two parts of me can come to some kind of agreement on what would make them happy.
The problem is for all the trouble that comes with being around people, there is a lot of good from them too. By nature we're social creatures and crave interaction with others. Granted some of us have a shorter tolerance than others, but being around other human beings can bring out some of the best of us. When we're alone there is little to push us to be more than we are. Sure a person may strive to be better. It's just that when we're by ourselves the only measuring stick we have is what we come up with. Now a great many things can come from being alone. You can really learn about who you are if you ever give yourself a chance to just sit and be alone with yourself. That may sound strange, but try it sometime. Turn off as much external stimulation as possible and just be with yourself. At first your mind may feel as though it's starved for input, but eventually you'll settle down and that's when you'll start getting to know yourself a bit more. You may finally start facing certain things about yourself that you didn't know where there. This can be both good and frightening as sometimes it's easier to brush things under the carpet. There is a reason why solitary confinement is considered a punishment. After awhile we need other people in much the same way that we need food and water. There is something about having people around that we simply have to have. Like anything else, moderation is key.
So there is that part of me that wants to go off and live like Jeremiah Johnson, before the whole being attacked constantly by Indians, surviving off the land and just being left alone. Then there is another part of me that wants something completely different. This part wants to be surrounded by people of various relationships. Friends, family, wacky neighbors, and plenty of that-guy-you-know type people. This part of me also is fascinated with possibilities. Technical advancements. Scientific discoveries. Medical breakthroughs. Our place in the global community. The future of all mankind. This part of me is excited to hear about what new greatness exists just around the corner. I want to be a part of it, even if only on the sideline as an amateur enthusiast. Trivial things like movies, art, literature, and video games are all sources of potential greatness and joy. I see these things and it's like being a kid again, just stunned with happiness that they exist in my time. Not only do I see these things I want to share my experiences with others and have them do the same with me. This is where our craving for interaction with other people really comes into play. I could read something and think one thing and then someone else reads the same thing and thinks something slightly different. We talk about it and we both realize we never would have come to those thoughts without each other. It makes what we read that much more enjoyable because it takes on additional meanings. To me that's the best part of people.
Not very long ago it felt like I woke up one day and it felt like much of the world was annoyingly bad. The things I liked once were now stupid to me. My tolerance for this spreading stupidity was shrinking quickly. Watching TV I'd see more and more signs that we as a society are embracing mediocrity and celebrating the dumb while complaining about how it's not fair that those people over there have it better than us. I was starting to feel very much disenchanted with just about everything. How come I couldn't find joy in the little things like I used to? Things couldn't really be as bad as they seemed. There had to be some good out there in the world. How come I couldn't see it? This is where the two conflicting sides of me start going to work. If the world is full of stupid crap and there aren't any signs of it getting better, then maybe it would be good to extricate myself from the world. It's probably a pretty natural feeling by many people. They see the world seemingly running away into a chaotic mess that has lost all sense of meaning. Why let yourself become a part of this ever increasing problem? Maybe it's just best to escape while it's still an option.
The thing is that even if you don't see the good in the world it's still out there. You're just not looking hard enough. It can be difficult to break out of the assumption that everything is stupid. Sure there will always be stupidity and people who seem to have the sole purpose on this planet to get in your way or make you seriously question our future as a species. For every stupid person out there exists someone brilliant. Someone trying to do good and overcome the idea that the lowest common denominator is good enough. You just have to look for them with a little more effort. It's too easy to accept what's presented to us on a daily basis. That the world is in disarray. That we should be afraid of our neighbor. That we should accept the cheapest possible version of something and be thankful for it. Instead maybe it would be best to stop taking the version of someone else as the truth and go out and see for ourselves. Not everything is going to be wonderful, but not everything is going to be horrifying either. We've gotten to a point where it takes a lot to get our attention so in turn only extremes can catch our eye. Maybe by turning off the so-called filters that actually act as amplifiers we can start to get back to what's real. For me the hope is that by doing so I can hopefully figure out if the two parts of me can come to some kind of agreement on what would make them happy.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
On the Web of Life
I was watching a nature special the other day. The thing I've noticed about nature specials is that they're really ever about two things. The first is animals eating other animals in the struggle to survive. The second is animals making baby animals so they can eat and make further babies. So the purpose of life in the animal kingdom is really just to keep on living. We as humans tend to look for meaning beyond simply where our next meal comes from. In the end though we're bound by the same rules as all other lifeforms on the planet. We must consume life to maintain our own. Even a vegetarian has to eat something that was alive so that they may live. It got me thinking though about life and the world as a whole. As I've mentioned before, with energy it's impossible to destroy it, only transform it somehow. What if all life is connected? I don't mean in some vaguely spiritual way, although that could also be true, but rather in the sense that we're not individual lifeforms. What if we're all just pieces of a greater life web? If that were true then when a lion eats a gazelle it's simply moving part of the energy from one area to another. Now I know that some could argue against this idea because not all life coexists peacefully and it would seem counter to us being a part of something large. Look at our own bodies though. There are cells that mutate or grown out of control that ultimately destroy other cells for their own survival. If it happens within us then what's to say that we're not a part of something larger where the same thing is happen, only on a much grander scale?
This is where people start to look for a greater meaning to life since it seems like an almost pointless exercise to be struggling to maintain whatever energy we can grab for no other purpose than to hold onto it for a little while. A beetle has the instinct to live and reproduce and that's its whole purpose in life. Why though? To what end does it do this? The beetle exists only to exist. What if that beetle exists because it must consume a plant; who's own existence is there to serve as food for the beetle, and in turn the beetle must eventually become food to something larger than itself. This life web grows forever outward. Given enough time we all become food for something else. Our own purpose is to finally give up our own bodies so that something else can live. It can seem bleak since all of our experiences and memories come to an end. No matter how important we think we are, there will come a time when we simply don't exist as we do now. And in a way that's a good thing. If we are made up of energy that cannot be destroyed then what we are has to carry on somehow.
In the end it doesn't really address the overall question of what's the point of life? Most life on this planet strive to exist for the sake of passing on their genes to the next generation in a seemingly endless cycle. Maybe we as humans feel the need for there to be something greater behind it all. That being alive for the sake of living just isn't enough. If we are somehow a part of something greater then it's possible our purpose in life is more than we imagined. We live and die like everything else because we're a part of something. What that something is may be unknowable because we're talking about not just life on our planet, but possibly the entirety of the universe. We may be the equivalent of a single cell in this overall life, but each one is important, otherwise it would have no reason to exist in the first place. Then again maybe the idea of a grand life web is just another way of rationalizing all the dizzying randomness of life. Our purpose here could potentially be nothing more than an innate need to continue living. Life itself could only be a chance encounter of proteins that met in just the right environment. Still we are alive and we are aware of it so maybe it doesn't matter if it was all random to begin with. Maybe the first step to something greater is being aware that there is possibly something greater.
This is where people start to look for a greater meaning to life since it seems like an almost pointless exercise to be struggling to maintain whatever energy we can grab for no other purpose than to hold onto it for a little while. A beetle has the instinct to live and reproduce and that's its whole purpose in life. Why though? To what end does it do this? The beetle exists only to exist. What if that beetle exists because it must consume a plant; who's own existence is there to serve as food for the beetle, and in turn the beetle must eventually become food to something larger than itself. This life web grows forever outward. Given enough time we all become food for something else. Our own purpose is to finally give up our own bodies so that something else can live. It can seem bleak since all of our experiences and memories come to an end. No matter how important we think we are, there will come a time when we simply don't exist as we do now. And in a way that's a good thing. If we are made up of energy that cannot be destroyed then what we are has to carry on somehow.
In the end it doesn't really address the overall question of what's the point of life? Most life on this planet strive to exist for the sake of passing on their genes to the next generation in a seemingly endless cycle. Maybe we as humans feel the need for there to be something greater behind it all. That being alive for the sake of living just isn't enough. If we are somehow a part of something greater then it's possible our purpose in life is more than we imagined. We live and die like everything else because we're a part of something. What that something is may be unknowable because we're talking about not just life on our planet, but possibly the entirety of the universe. We may be the equivalent of a single cell in this overall life, but each one is important, otherwise it would have no reason to exist in the first place. Then again maybe the idea of a grand life web is just another way of rationalizing all the dizzying randomness of life. Our purpose here could potentially be nothing more than an innate need to continue living. Life itself could only be a chance encounter of proteins that met in just the right environment. Still we are alive and we are aware of it so maybe it doesn't matter if it was all random to begin with. Maybe the first step to something greater is being aware that there is possibly something greater.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)